Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7

[Hope4More]

Sealing court for secret testimony, October 30, 2013, and Rule 9.3.b of the Arizona Criminal Procedure (part 1).
-------------------------------------------------------------------


I. OCTOBER 20, 2013.

Trial began in the morning. Tanisha gave her victim impact statement, and by all accounts, virtually everyone in the courtroom, including at least some jurors, openly wept as she spoke. Stephen gave his statement next, and the crying continued. JSS called for lunch recess, after which the first defense witness was to be called.

Chaos followed instead. When all trial documents are finally unsealed and appeals exhausted, from the record that is available, I think what we’ll learn is that the demand for the courtroom to be closed was made by the , unilaterally and spontaneously, because she wanted to seize the spotlight back from the Alexander family, and because she was angered by the universal sympathy for their grief being demonstrated that morning.
-----------------------------------------------

II. Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 9.3.b . Exclusion of witnesses and spectators

b. Spectators. All proceedings shall be open to the public, including representatives of the news media, unless the court finds, upon application of the defendant,

that an open proceeding presents a clear and present danger to the defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

A complete record of any closed proceedings shall be kept and made available to the public following the completion of trial or disposition of the case without trial.
----------------------------------------


III. Pre-trial secrecy and Rule 9.3.

JSS ordered the unsealing of bench conference transcripts a few weeks after the first sentencing phase mistrial, only to reverse herself a week or so later by ordering the transcripts be resealed as their availability might “taint the jury pool” for PP2.

The court-imposed secrecy of PP2 proceedings began then, that secrecy demanded by the DT and predicated on their oft-repeated assertion that trial publicity had prevented the defendant from receiving a fair guilt phase trial, and unless adequate measures were taken, threatened to deprive her of a fair penalty retrial.

Nurmi’s August 2013 motions (change of venue, jury sequestration, individual voir dire) were intended to reinforce the publicity -related issues the DT had from the very beginning been laying down as groundwork for later appeals.

On September 16, 2013, JSS ordered that mitigation witness names (the DT’s witness list) be filed under seal. On October 1, 2013 JSS ruled that the scheduled October 4 and 18 pre-trial hearings be closed to the public, saying explicitly “that open court would present “a clear and present danger” to the defendant’s right to a fair trial,” and that given “intense media coverage, there is no less restrictive measure than closure.” JSS’s ruling was based squarely on her interpretation of Rule 9.3

Approximately one month later, on November 4 and 19, 2013, two secret hearings were held about “the threat” to the ’s due process rights posed by pre-trial publicity. The hearings were to be kept so secret that JSS ordered the court clerk to scrub the court’s public minute entry website docket of any mention the hearings had even taken place.

Part of what JSS ordered during the November 19, 2013 hearing , though, can be known by inference from the transcript of bench and chamber hearings on October 30th 2014, and from Nurmi’s argument to the Court of Appeals that the court remain sealed for CMJA’s testimony.

By inference, then: on November 19, 2013, JSS agreed with the DT’s argument that Rule 9.3 allowed her to clear the media and public during proceedings in which CMJA’s mitigation witnesses testified. She did NOT commit to clearing the court for any of the DT’s mitigation witnesses. Rather, she stated then that she MIGHT invoke the Rule, should circumstances warrant her doing so.

The circumstances the DT claimed dire enough to warrant evicting the media and public from open court seems to have been their assertion that mitigation witnesses wouldn’t agree to testify unless shielded from the public. That claim was “factual.” The second prong of their argument was about legal consequences. The DT argued that a denial by JSS of the DT’s “request” to close court to accommodate the intimidated witnesses was legally equivalent to “precluding” mitigation, and thus would deprive CMJA of her due process constitutional rights.

In turn, the “necessity” of shielding witnesses the DT asserted was predicated on the DT’s “factual” representation that defense witnesses were actually being threatened.

JSS hadn’t been convinced enough in November 2013 that the existence of any such threats merited granting the DT’s request for closure outright. Did her order to close the court on October 30, 2014 indicate the circumstances that day were what she had previously said might warrant sealing the court to protect CMJA’s due process rights? The answer is--yes and no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Hope4More]

(part 2).


IV. JSS ruling on closing court. October 30, 2014.


“The defendant has an overriding and compelling interest in presenting mitigation evidence from this witness. And that interest will be prejudiced if the courtroom is not closed so this witness can testify.

The closure of the courtroom is no broader than necessary to protect the defendant’s interest in providing mitigation evidence for the penalty phase jury.

The court has presented other alternatives, but the witness refuses to testify unless the court is closed. (Therefore—the court will be closed).

The court will consider unsealing the testimony of this witness, or a redacted portion of that testimony after a verdict is reached. “

-------------------------------------------------------------

V. From the Court of Appeals Opinion (explains legal basis for granting media the stay of JSS’s ruling to seal Court)


LEGAL GROUNDS. “We must decide whether a “clear and present” danger exists under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule” 9.3) that justifies excluding the press and public during portions of the penalty phase trial.” We grant relief because we can find no clear and present danger.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND. The court found the witness was necessary for the mitigation portion of the (trial), that closing court was necessary for the administration of justice, and was no broader than necessary given (her) over riding and compelling interest in presenting mitigation evidence. The Court then closed court room proceedings and sealed (her) testimony until after a verdict.


COA DISCUSSION. The media argued 1st Amendment violations, the defendant argued 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendment protections. We don’t need to resolve the dispute on constitutional grounds “if other interests are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.”

We review, then, the interpretation of (Arizona) statutes and court rules. The standard we use in interpreting the rules of criminal procedure (referring to Rule 9.3) is the “principle of statutory construction” and “first look to the plain text of the rule.”

((Translation: they’re going to interpret what the Arizona legislature meant to say with Rule 9.3, and they’re going to look first just at the wording of the Rule first, to see if the legislative intent can be readily understood by the words themselves.))

Where the issues before us are a mixture of facts and law, we defer to the court’s factual findings, unless they’re clearly erroneous, but ((we exercise our discretion of reviewing and deciding on the legal issues involved, whether we’re requested to or not--“de novo,” paraphrased).

It is undisputed that the public has a constitutional and common law right of access to observe court proceedings.

The exclusion of the public therefore is an extraordinary measure and should be done with caution, “especially when requested by a defendant,”.. and “would take from the public its right to be informed of a proceeding to which it is an interested party.”

Arizona’s constitution directs that court be open. Our Supreme Court follows the US Supreme Court’s determination that proceedings may (only)be closed if there are circumstances which establish “a clear and present danger that the judicial process will be subverted by an open hearing. Phoenix Newspapers v. Jennings.

AZ’s Supreme Court (has) defined clear and present danger as: “the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high.” (The Court cited Bridges v California 1941 in arriving at that definition)..

The definition of clear and present danger in Phoenix v Jennings was subsequently adopted into Rule 9.3.

 

[Hope4More]

Part 3.



COA DISCUSSION: After hearing the State’s objection to closing court proceedings, (JSS) “conducted the Waller analysis,” and concluded sealing the court was unnecessary.
-----------------------------
October 30th transcript: the State’s objection:

JM: What this comes down to is the DT is telling you to kick the public out because she’s nervous. “Nothing in case law indicates she has a right to testify in sealed court because they are nervous.”

“Seal the court because the defendant is nervous and it’s my belief this would be overturned on appeal.”
------------------------------------------
JSS excuses herself for a few minutes to "look up the rules." then returns and shortly afterwards does the Waller analysis (mostly paraphrased summary from transcript):

JSS: "OK. There are 4 factors the Court must consider before closing court proceedings." She reads out the factors one at a time, and provides her response for each:

1. Parties seeking to close a hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced if the proceeding is not closed.

“In regard to that, I do find that the defendant is indicating that she will feel intimidated and it will affect her ability to communicate to the jury matters she thinks will be significant to her mitigation.”

2. Closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest.

“Victim and defendant’ families can stay, everyone else can go to overflow room. That should address her concern about feeling intimidated. I’ll order video and cameras turned off, but Court video will be available after trial. I don’t think it is appropriate to close court entirely.

3. Must consider reasonable alternatives to sealing proceedings entirely. “I just did that.”

4. Must make findings to support closure. “I believe I’ve done that in this hearing.”

-------------------------

COA DISCUSSION: (Arias ) was advised of the court’s ruling, but refused to testify if the press and public could know what how she testified “because of the pressure I would feel because of these threats.”
----------------------------------------------------------------

From the transcript: the refusal
-----------------------------------------------

JW: “I will have to inform (Arias) about your ruling. I believe she will refuse to testify.”

JM: “I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you”.

JSS- she’s going to refuse to testify because she knows people will be listening elsewhere?

JW. Yes.

JSS- I thought the concern was she’d feel intimidated by their physical presence in the courtroom?

JW- Yes. But mostly that if people are there to hear then there will be more hate on SM and then more hate mail sent to her, and the prospect of that will make it impossible for her to say what she wants to say.

(JW speaks to her client)

JW: She won’t testify. Said she’s already received death threats about what she hasn’t said yet. Says it will “affect her ability to be honest on the stand…….not her honesty, but to say what she means.” “I can inform the court that a crazy person is trying to visit her.”

(JSS convenes in chambers, tells CMJA to speak for the record)

JSS: You will be testifying next and object to cameras as well as the public being in the courtroom. Is that correct?

: “Well, not just in the courtroom. Their knowledge of my testimony at all. “

JSS: Tell me what your concern is.

: “I’ve received several threats over the years, lots of crazy people try to visit me in jail,” some of the threats are very specific and linked to what I might say. I can give you specifics.

JSS: OK.

: well, some are hateful to Travis and his family and some are hateful to me, it goes both ways, and “I can’t say what I want in terms of being open and honest because of the pressure from these threats.” (adds: I’ve also heard that one of Ta’s friends wants to shot me between the eyes.”

JSS. “Well, you’re in custody. So the physical threat aspect, I would think, would be of limited concern to you.” As for mail—if you don’t read it, you won’t be aware of what it says.


COA DISCUSION: “Although expressing concern that (Arias) was being manipulative, the court stated it had considered the potential legal ramifications if an appellate court later determined (Arias) didn’t voluntarily waive her right to present mitigation evidence.



“Although the court did not explicitly find a clear and present danger to a fair trial, we infer the court considered Arias’ refusal to testify in public proceedings and its potential legal implications to be a clear and present danger. We disagree with the implicit finding, however. “



“Despite Arias’ belief that the public reaction to her testimony would inhibit her ability “to present a full and complete case for her life, “her concerns about the public’s response do not demonstrate the existence of a clear and present danger that would impede her right to a fair trial with an impartial jury.”

Adds about the public’s response: The Supreme Court has recognized that cases like hers “may provoke public concern, outrage, and hostility”, but when the public is aware that law is being enforced and the criminal justice system is working, “an outlet is provided for these understandable thoughts and emotions.”

The public may in fact be quite hostile to her, and many may express that sentiment to her directly by mail, but her concern about that response does not, as a matter of law, amount to an extremely serious substantive evil warranting closing the court to the press and public.”

In other words, the COA found that JSS's reason for closing court, the "clear and present danger" she saw, had absolutely nothing to do with the DT's counter assertion that pervasive publicity and alleged threats constituted a "clear and present" danger to CMJA's due process rights.

 

[Hope4More]

Part 4.


Appeal Hearing (on the stay of JSS’s court closure) before the Court of Appeals, November 3, 2014.


((YoutTube video, 21.28 minutes. [video=youtube;K_k7P_QQ4Fs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_k7P_QQ4Fs[/video] ))


Bodney (attorney for media) statement and questions by panel (minutes 1-8:22):

Cites the “quartet” of US Supreme Court cases establishing the media and public’s right to open court proceedings: Richmond v. Virginia, Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court, and the 2 Press Enterprise cases, “the first of which was a capital case”.

*Procedurally, the trial judge is obligated to explain what interest is so compelling that that access to proceedings must be denied. That didn’t happen. We don’t know who the witness is or why the court is being sealed. “All we know is that there is a witness who doesn’t want to testify in public. I dare say that is true of virtually every witness.”

Minute 7: “We have no idea where this is going to end. Maybe the defendant wants to put on her entire case in secret. Maybe all the witnesses would prefer to testify in secret….”

Nurmi’s argument that the COA not stay JSS’s closure order (9.22-19.13).

(The Court had asked Bodney –“what would a situation justifying closure look like?”)

9:42. Nurmi: What kind of case should be sealed? This one, the first time around. “All (Arias’) mitigation witnesses, to the point there weren’t any to put on, were threatened enough that they refused to come forward. All defense witnesses were threatened, through SM or direct contact, about their testimony. “

“And, it would look like that if the courtroom doors were opened and she had to face these threats again.”

Court: “Sealing court is a very drastic thing to do.”

10:40. Nurmi: “You’re right,” then immediately refers to the sealed Minute Entry of November 14, 2013. He said JSS, invoking Rule 9.3, had indicated that (sealing) was “something we will do if the situation arises.”

He adds- and JSS is in the best position to decide if closure is warranted.

Court: That sealed entry wasn’t provided us, so it’s not part of the record and won’t be considered.

11:45. Court: Are we just talking about court being sealed for this one witness?

Nurmi starts off: ”Well, potentially we’re talking about (more than ..)” but is interrupted by the Court, the intent of the question relating strictly to the subject of the stay itself.

Nurmi: The current order relates to just one witness, but the “backdrop to the order (to seal) is JSS’s ruling on Nov 16 “in which she recites her reasons and why she moved to (seal the court now).

(Note: Nurmi clearly misrepresented what JSS said on Nov 16, as well as her reason for sealing court on October 30th.

Court: “Case law notes a defendant has no constitutional right to a secret trial. If any of those witnesses were to testify in closed proceedings, wouldn’t that be a secret trial?”

12.42. Nurmi: Two sets of rights exist, but since her life is on the line, DP jurisprudence says that her rights to full mitigation are superior to anyone else’s 1st Amendment rights.


13.45. Nurmi: And anyway, “we’re talking about a temporary restriction,” just about “limiting reporters from sitting there tweeting about the case then running out and reporting about it. “They can get a transcript of what she said at some later date.

“So, secrecy for now, if you will, is a much less constitutional harm to Ms. Arias then not allowing her to present, or to give, full effect to her mitigation.”

Court: What about secrecy just for when she is testifying, as opposed to keeping her testimony secret until after the verdict?

Nurmi: The problem with that is the threats could come immediately after testimony, and those people might also be rebuttal witnesses. They could testify, be threatened, then refuse to return, so we wouldn’t be able to rebut State witnesses’ testimony.

Court: So, you’re saying it’s OK to lift the secrecy after testimonies are completed?

15.45. Nurmi: Well, yes and no. Everything of the trial so far has been open, “but there are some mitigation witnesses who feel threatened, who feel they not be willing to put their life and liberty at stake to come testify.”

“So we’re talking about select witnesses, including the one we’re discussing, who feel like they can’t offer valid-or any-testimony if their identities are revealed.”

Court: “You’re saying the only way to prevent that harm is to keep the witnesses’ identity always unknown, and I’m troubled by that.”

Nurmi: We’re just asking not to have the intimidation that comes from the immediacy from reporting on the trial. Threats can be made in real time. Witnesses could be threatened during their testimony…there can be email threats, or threats by Twitter. “I received these on a daily basis during testimony.”

Court: “Isn’t the threat of intimidation always existing?”

17.30. Nurmi: “Yes, but (closing the court) is a way of vacating it. And I think we have to say, and your Honors would know better than I, (Rule) 9.3 is there for a reason, right?

9.3 has to be there for a reason, and we would respectfully submit, this is the reason, and that (JSS) exercised her authority under that provision, and (did so) properly.”

That’s the assertion we’re making here, because (Arias’) rights are FAR superior to the (media’s) rights to attend or to broadcast these proceedings.

18:30. Court: Is the public’s right just as subservient to that right of hers you are arguing?

Nurmi: Responds to that with non-responsive blathering, though he does manage to threaten a mistrial could result if the proceedings get held up and more jurors are lost. Returns to his seat next to hunched over JM.

Bodney has reserved a few minutes of his time and returns to the podium:

“Your Honors, this case cries out for this court’s remedial protection.” We’re not asking for delays, all that has to happen is for the transcripts of testimony to be released and the doors opened.

“There has been a confusion over the Rule 122 right to have a camera at this trial (note: with limitations and restrictions) and the 1st Amendment right, or the right under article 10, section 11 of the Arizona constitution to ATTEND the trial. “

In a closed hearing, the court ruled against having cameras allowed in the penalty phase, after agreeing to them in the guilt phase, and “we live with that, as it is a balancing test under Rule 122.”

That’s not the rule here, or the 1st Amendment. In the Waller v Georgia USSC case, the court said the explicit 6th amendment right of the accused is no less protective of the public trial than the implicit 1st amendment right of the press and the public.

Bodney’s closing: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility of their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”

"We don’t know what’s going on, and (pointing towards Nurmi) I think we just heard the risk of being kept in perpetual confusion and darkness in this case unless this court steps in and enforces the 1st amendment rights of the press and public.”

The hearing concludes.

 

[Hope4More]

Conclusion .


(Why I think the demand to close court may have originated with a spiteful CMJA, or alternatively (as Nurmi's motions always were so worded), and IMO not as likely, that the DT was in essence playing out an upped ante bait and switch hustle on JSS).


YOU ALREADY SAID WE COULD DO THIS—The DT’s argument to JSS, October 30, 2013.

Nurmi: sealing court is consistent, anyway, with what you’ve already ruled; you’ve said our mitigation witnesses could testify under seal and no cameras.

JSS: well, I said I’d be willing to forbid cameras, but now you’re asking me to seal her testimony until post-verdict, correct?

JM: yes, they’re asking you clear the whole court, but the criteria to seal court has not been met.

JSS: I need to check the rules, the criteria for sealing. Back in a few.

JW: but you already said we could do this.

JSS: I’m going to go check the rules anyway. (Waller analysis follows. JSS does NOT agree to seal court).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CMJA: I’M A MITIGATION WITNESS TOO. October 31, 2013, after JW informs her that court will not be sealed and she again and still refuses to testify unless it is.


JSS: You know the trial is not being broadcast live, that your testimony will be made public after the trial, and that you can conceivably receive threats whether you testify or not?

CMJA: Well, some of my witnesses will be testifying under seal because they won’t be willing to otherwise because of how it would affect their lives in the future, and unless promised their testimony and identities won’t be released in the future, they’re not willing to testify. That’s my position too, and I’m just asking for what you’re allowing them.


JSS: I have not yet received any written motions requesting that any of the witnesses’ statements be sealed, or their testimony sealed, or the proceedings closed.

We’ve discussed this in the past, but I haven’t received any such requests for the penalty phase retrial, and I haven’t made any rulings.


CMJA. That isn’t what I understood about what you were allowing “my witnesses.”


------------------------------------------------


The . Furious that the Alexanders' grief was "stealing" her time in the spotlight on the first day of her grand return to the stand, and arrogant/delusional enough to demand that she be treated the same as any of her (fictional) intimidated mitigation witnesses, despite the fact she was at that point a convicted especially cruel, 1st degree murderer.

 

[HMSHood]

Turns out I was able to find Omar Mateen's handwriting. They are both from 2006, which is possible it changed since than.

His handwriting looks quite different from Jodi Arias's handwriting.

Jodi Aria's Handwriting

Lori Drew's Handwriting

There is consistent and heavy pressure in Mateen's handwriting, unlike in Jodi Arias and Lori Drew's handwriting. They have inconsistent pressure. There is less muddying in Mateen's handwriting compare to theirs. Muddying usually indicates secretive and repressed uncontrollable urges, which plagues Arias and Drew.

The use of print and cursive is sporadic in Mateen, but more common in Arias and Drew. All of their handwriting angles to the right.

 

[Hope4More]

Coda, and Memo to L. Nurmi, Esquire & to Judge Stephens:




“Courts are public institutions and the manner in which justice is administered does not have any private aspects.” Phoenix Newspapers Inc. v Maricopa Co (1966).

 

[TexMex]

The judge put some very interesting statements on record. She said,

“Well I acknowledge that I believe this is a manipulative tactic; and I have concerns about the genuine reason for the request to close the proceedings; however, my concern is that if I don’t close the proceedings, the Defendant will be precluded from testifying or will refuse, and I’m not sure that under these circumstances an Appellate Court will find that it is a voluntary waiver of her right to present mitigation. So I’m going to close the proceedings.”


Her further comments show that she did not take this decision lightly. According to the transcripts it does appear that Judge Stephens hands were tied on the matter. Her tone also almost implies she wished that she could rule any other way. Her final words on the matter were,

“That [defendant’s] interest will be prejudiced if the courtroom is not closed. The court has considered and suggested other alternatives to closing the courtroom; however, the witness has refused to participate unless the courtroom is closed during his or her testimony……I’m aware of the First Amendment implications. This was not an easy decision.”


So Stephens "protected" Jodi's right to testify without "feeling intimidated" by spectators/press. Protected her right from involuntary waiver of mitigation testimony. Stephens knew it would be appealed by media. She let the Appelate Court hear the arguments, reverse her decision...protecting the record for post conviction/sentencing appeal.

 

[krkrjx]

It was a predicament for Judge Stephens, to put it mildly. But her hands were not tied. Stephens acted freely and with full knowledge that the court was being manipulated--she even admits she knew this to be the case--when she kicked the Constitution to the curb and closed the court because the defendant whined and sniveled and stomped her feet tantrum style, If I don't get my way, I won't play.

What a sad state of affairs that was.

JMO

 

[TexMex]

It was a predicament for Judge Stephens, to put it mildly. But her hands were not tied. Stephens acted freely and with full knowledge that the court was being manipulated--she even admits she knew this to be the case--when she kicked the Constitution to the curb and closed the court because the defendant whined and sniveled and stomped her feet tantrum style, If I don't get my way, I won't play.

What a sad state of affairs that was.

JMO

IMO Stephens out manipulated the manipulator. She ruled in her favor, protecting her rights, knowing an appellate court would soon hear the medias side and reverse her. So what if Jodi thinks she "won" that battle. She lost the war and will lose the appeal as well
Jmo

 

[Hope4More]

The judge put some very interesting statements on record. She said,

“Well I acknowledge that I believe this is a manipulative tactic; and I have concerns about the genuine reason for the request to close the proceedings; however, my concern is that if I don’t close the proceedings, the Defendant will be precluded from testifying or will refuse, and I’m not sure that under these circumstances an Appellate Court will find that it is a voluntary waiver of her right to present mitigation. So I’m going to close the proceedings.”


Her further comments show that she did not take this decision lightly. According to the transcripts it does appear that Judge Stephens hands were tied on the matter. Her tone also almost implies she wished that she could rule any other way. Her final words on the matter were,

“That [defendant’s] interest will be prejudiced if the courtroom is not closed. The court has considered and suggested other alternatives to closing the courtroom; however, the witness has refused to participate unless the courtroom is closed during his or her testimony……I’m aware of the First Amendment implications. This was not an easy decision.”


So Stephens "protected" Jodi's right to testify without "feeling intimidated" by spectators/press. Protected her right from involuntary waiver of mitigation testimony. Stephens knew it would be appealed by media. She let the Appelate Court hear the arguments, reverse her decision...protecting the record for post conviction/sentencing appeal.

CMJA didn't have a "right" to testify in sealed court. In fact, the US Supreme Court, the Arizona Supreme Court, and the AZ legislature had all explicitly stated she (defendants) was prohibited from doing so.

The only caveat to that prohibition was if a serious enough "clear and present danger" existed that meant testifying in public would deprive her of a fair trial.

Nurmi tried to define that danger factually --( threats to witnesses ) resulting in the unconstitutional undermining of her ability to "actualize her mitigation" if witnesses refused to testify.

JSS rejected the DT's factual argument for clear and present danger, which is why she didn't agree at first to closure, and offered instead to send media and public to another room, the only appropriate remedy for that "intimidation."

She fell into the trap of part 2, though, that refusal to testify equalled (involuntary) preclusion of mitigation.

That conclusion wasn't strategy on her part, it was plain and simple error, as the COA rather gently pointed out in their opinion. I'm sure she didn't make the decision lightly. But neither did she make a good decision.

It was a very bad decision, executed poorly (she didn't even follow proper procedure in ordering that unconstitutional closure). Not to mention, her ruling that she'd decide post-trial whether or not to release a (possibly redacted) transcript? That too was an illegal, impermissible ruling.

 

[Hope4More]

It was a predicament for Judge Stephens, to put it mildly. But her hands were not tied. Stephens acted freely and with full knowledge that the court was being manipulated--she even admits she knew this to be the case--when she kicked the Constitution to the curb and closed the court because the defendant whined and sniveled and stomped her feet tantrum style, If I don't get my way, I won't play.

What a sad state of affairs that was.

JMO

She knew she was being manipulated --nothing new there, she'd been dealing with the for years at that point--but I don't agree she casually and intentionally kicked the Constitution to the curb.

I think she lacked confidence all along, was exhausted by this endless, high profile, highly contentious trial, was worn down by the DT, and unfortunately, was predisposed towards secrecy herself (AZL said on many occasions that it was highly unusual for judges to seal proceedings as often as JSS routinely did during the GUILT phase. In other words, from the very beginning.

 

[krkrjx]

She knew she was being manipulated --nothing new there, she'd been dealing with the for years at that point--but I don't agree she casually and intentionally kicked the Constitution to the curb.

I think she lacked confidence all along, was exhausted by this endless, high profile, highly contentious trial, was worn down by the DT, and unfortunately, was predisposed towards secrecy herself (AZL said on many occasions that it was highly unusual for judges to seal proceedings as often as JSS routinely did during the GUILT phase. In other words, from the very beginning.

She did lack confidence, that was obvious with all the sidebars she allowed.

However, all judges run into situations on the bench where they are not sure what is the best way to rule, even some very experienced ones have to take the time to look things up. Stephens should have researched this properly before ruling, perhaps asked a more experienced cohort for clarification or about whether she was interpreting the law properly. As it was, she looked weak and indecisive; she never should have let that defendant call the shots...that's how it looked to me and if I saw it that way I am sure other citizens did, too.

 

[RickshawFan]

She knew she was being manipulated --nothing new there, she'd been dealing with the for years at that point--but I don't agree she casually and intentionally kicked the Constitution to the curb.

I think she lacked confidence all along, was exhausted by this endless, high profile, highly contentious trial, was worn down by the DT, and unfortunately, was predisposed towards secrecy herself (AZL said on many occasions that it was highly unusual for judges to seal proceedings as often as JSS routinely did during the GUILT phase. In other words, from the very beginning.

My interpretation is that JSS had an extreme personal abhorrence of (who wouldn't?) but had to be "fair" (even maybe just in her own mind) 'cos that's her job. JSS over-compensated in the ' favor to counterbalance her own feelings about her. This has to be a tricky balance for many judges to maintain.

I don't think JSS was casual at all. To identify whether she is prone to secrecy, I think you'd have to look at the range of trials she has adjudicated, and not just one.

I feel for JSS. This was an awful process for her to have to step through, and she must surely be another victim of the ' evil.


Also, JSS had some gems of statements that showed what she's made of. One of my favorites was when turned down allocution. JSS pretty much asked, "Are you on something?"

There was no good answer to this: total Catch-22. If said yes? Well.....Non starter. When said no (and smirked), her answer was problematic in two ways: a) she was supposed to be on medication IIRC, so she was out of compliance with her jailers; and b) if she wasn't on medication, presumably she was conveying that she was of sound mind (though she was simultaneously claiming she had a severe mental illness as mitigation, suffered from PTSD, lack of support, abusive parents, tiny cell, and all kinds of other BS that almost certainly required medication just to get through a day).
BAM!
The most benign answer to JSS' question was not yes or no. It was something like this: "Yes, I'm on medication because Maricopa County has ordered it by virtue of my residence in Estrella. However, it helps me think straight. And I'm saying no to allocution after having spent some time thinking about it and with a clear mind."


I also always appreciated the quality of JSS' written rulings, too.

I hope JSS is getting help in dealing with the traumatic aftermath of this ordeal.

 

[Hez]

Where did you find out the "book drive" had been concluded? I hope she made a lot of other inmates rageful with her notion that her book drive was about helping them.

It was below the tweet about the 'woe is me, there's no hot water in June in Arizona' update. Whoever is tweeting said the drive is complete and they would be providing an update soon. I don't really believe it, but we'll see I guess. I think it's more likely the book drive is 'complete' is because someone in charge at Perryville said it was, not necessarily because the inmate amassed any reading material to distribute to her new roomies. :tos:

 

[TexMex]

My interpretation is that JSS had an extreme personal abhorrence of (who wouldn't?) but had to be "fair" (even maybe just in her own mind) 'cos that's her job. JSS over-compensated in the ' favor to counterbalance her own feelings about her. This has to be a tricky balance for many judges to maintain.

I don't think JSS was casual at all. To identify whether she is prone to secrecy, I think you'd have to look at the range of trials she has adjudicated, and not just one.

I feel for JSS. This was an awful process for her to have to step through, and she must surely be another victim of the ' evil.


Also, JSS had some gems of statements that showed what she's made of. One of my favorites was when turned down allocution. JSS pretty much asked, "Are you on something?"

There was no good answer to this: total Catch-22. If said yes? Well.....Non starter. When said no (and smirked), her answer was problematic in two ways: a) she was supposed to be on medication IIRC, so she was out of compliance with her jailers; and b) if she wasn't on medication, presumably she was conveying that she was of sound mind (though she was simultaneously claiming she had a severe mental illness as mitigation, suffered from PTSD, lack of support, abusive parents, tiny cell, and all kinds of other BS that almost certainly required medication just to get through a day).
BAM!
The most benign answer to JSS' question was not yes or no. It was something like this: "Yes, I'm on medication because Maricopa County has ordered it by virtue of my residence in Estrella. However, it helps me think straight. And I'm saying no to allocution after having spent some time thinking about it and with a clear mind."


I also always appreciated the quality of JSS' written rulings, too.

I hope JSS is getting help in dealing with the traumatic aftermath of this ordeal.

Well said Rickshaw

 

[Steve44]

IMO Stephens out manipulated the manipulator. She ruled in her favor, protecting her rights, knowing an appellate court would soon hear the medias side and reverse her. So what if Jodi thinks she "won" that battle. She lost the war and will lose the appeal as well
Jmo

If she made her best and most reasoned decision, why would she assume the COA would see it differently, and overturn her? If she felt this hypothetical reversal by the COA was in fact the right decision, why not make it herself, instead of wasting everyone's time?

 

[TexMex]

If she made her best and most reasoned decision, why would she assume the COA would see it differently, and overturn her? If she felt this hypothetical reversal by the COA was in fact the right decision, why not make it herself, instead of wasting everyone's time?

She protected the record. She ruled "protecting" JA rights of voluntary/involuntary waiver of testimony. Letting further judges hear the issue is a good thing. Protects the record and the conviction. She took one for the team so to speak.



Guadalupe River

 

[RickshawFan]

If she made her best and most reasoned decision, why would she assume the COA would see it differently, and overturn her? If she felt this hypothetical reversal by the COA was in fact the right decision, why not make it herself, instead of wasting everyone's time?

I agree with TexMex on this one. I think JSS artfully escalated the issue to the CofA. The "manipulative" word is on the record (I think this is key); there's been a dry run through the CofA with back up from AZSC; while it was impossible to predict what might do next, she'd already got slapped down by the top of the line court. JSS was doing everything she could to make a non-appealable case. This was just another example.

It was clear JSS wasn't at all taken in by ' lies; she had a hard time, methinks, figuring out how to handle the manipulation. I'm sure JSS totally understood what TA must have gone through, because she was actively experiencing it.

 

[HMSHood]

It's supposed to be 120 in Phoenix over the weekend!
But didn't ' cell block get air conditioning this summer? A hot shower might not be such a hardship?
I'd be sleeping under a wet towel.....

Hey, has anyone calculated when ' commissary money is going to run out? This year sometime?

120°F is very hot for normally hot Phoenix.